The best worst film of the year

Rating: 8/10 (3 January 2006)

I keep hearing about these movies that tank and this was one of them. I think people are setting their standards too high. We have been spoiled by unprecedented spending and film quality over the last 15 years, and not everything that hits the theaters screams to us: we MUST pay $10 to see it.
With home entertainment options today, movies like this are on people's must see for when it's released on DVD. But, my value does not translate to $10 at the theater.
Movies like this, with a great plot and interesting characters with moderate twists are high in quality, but do not have star appeal.
Hollywood may try to tell people who the stars are, but the consumer catches on quickly.
I give this movie an 8 because it was pretty captivating. I just think that this is something I'd like to be pleasantly surprised while renting but don't want to be disappointed while paying $10 for it.
In that, we are finding the value of movie tickets. A movie is worth only what people want to pay for it. Hollywood is complaining of a "down" year. Dude, gas prices are $2.59 a gallon and Jude Law makes $20 million a film or whatever? Maybe I'll watch it on DVD.
Therefore, I'd be VERY happy with a $4.25 rental cost but disappointed with a $10 movie ticket. I'd say it's worth $7.50. And that, my friends, is Hollywood's problem. Not worse movies, but the prices have gone up so much in the last few years that people would rather pay $4.25 and watch it on their 46" TV with a DVD player.
Why would I pay $10 for two seats, $6 for each popcorn, $5 for each soda, and $4 for each candy when I can do that total for $8 at my house? $50 to see the Island and be mad, or $8 and be happy? Hmmm....
Maybe I am making some sense.
Loved the movie. But it wasn't Deniro or Pacino in a classic.